That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight. They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

moeburn:That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight. They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I'll disagree. It's the slope of the beach that pulls him left, not engine torque. Watch again - he's always pointed the correct direction, but the plane crabs downhill. That's not what you'd see if the torque was a problem (not to mention it's a Jab 3300, one of the lower torque engines out there.)

fatbear:moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight. They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I'll disagree. It's the slope of the beach that pulls him left, not engine torque. Watch again - he's always pointed the correct direction, but the plane crabs downhill. That's not what you'd see if the torque was a problem (not to mention it's a Jab 3300, one of the lower torque engines out there.)

In any case he needed a metric assload of right rudder, which he didn't have on. Probably not steerable nosegear.

moeburn:That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight. They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I love the way he blames it on engine failure... as in, the engine failed because he basically drove into the water and the plane nosed over and the prop dug into the sand, laff.

I was taught to hold the stick/yoke all the way back for a soft field takeoff, they, um, didn't do that. Pilot error on top of pilot error.

fazookus:moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight. They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I love the way he blames it on engine failure... as in, the engine failed because he basically drove into the water and the plane nosed over and the prop dug into the sand, laff.

I was taught to hold the stick/yoke all the way back for a soft field takeoff, they, um, didn't do that. Pilot error on top of pilot error.

No, the landing was due to "engine failure". Engine failure that they corrected by transferring fuel from one wing to the other, apparently. As in - he ran one tank dry because he forgot to switch.

The whole civil aviation scene is still so stupidly primitive and pilot workload intensive. It's like a constant came of "Simon" where you crash when you make a mistake.

noitsnot:fatbear: moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight. They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I'll disagree. It's the slope of the beach that pulls him left, not engine torque. Watch again - he's always pointed the correct direction, but the plane crabs downhill. That's not what you'd see if the torque was a problem (not to mention it's a Jab 3300, one of the lower torque engines out there.)

In any case he needed a metric assload of right rudder, which he didn't have on. Probably not steerable nosegear.

True & false. The Jabs do have steerable nosehweels; he just didn't steer where he wanted to go.

noitsnot:No, the landing was due to "engine failure". Engine failure that they corrected by transferring fuel from one wing to the other, apparently. As in - he ran one tank dry because he forgot to switch.

The whole civil aviation scene is still so stupidly primitive and pilot workload intensive. It's like a constant came of "Simon" where you crash when you make a mistake.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Is anyone actually watching the video? If he just forgot to switch, he wouldn't need to transfer from one tank to the other. He had a faulty fuel valve, and couldn't access the fuel in the full tank.

fatbear:moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight. They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I'll disagree. It's the slope of the beach that pulls him left, not engine torque. Watch again - he's always pointed the correct direction, but the plane crabs downhill. That's not what you'd see if the torque was a problem (not to mention it's a Jab 3300, one of the lower torque engines out there.)

You're a bunch of cretins.

The motion of the ocean caused enough airflow to cause him to drift over.

Satanic_Hamster:fatbear: moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight. They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I'll disagree. It's the slope of the beach that pulls him left, not engine torque. Watch again - he's always pointed the correct direction, but the plane crabs downhill. That's not what you'd see if the torque was a problem (not to mention it's a Jab 3300, one of the lower torque engines out there.)

You're a bunch of cretins.

The motion of the ocean caused enough airflow to cause him to drift over.

How do I know you don't no shiat about LSA or Experimental aircraft?Not to mention the glass panel it has. Also, a Jabiru 3300 is beautiful engine, built on CNC equipment.Pilot error caused that crash, period

noitsnot:fazookus: moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight. They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I love the way he blames it on engine failure... as in, the engine failed because he basically drove into the water and the plane nosed over and the prop dug into the sand, laff.

I was taught to hold the stick/yoke all the way back for a soft field takeoff, they, um, didn't do that. Pilot error on top of pilot error.

No, the landing was due to "engine failure". Engine failure that they corrected by transferring fuel from one wing to the other, apparently. As in - he ran one tank dry because he forgot to switch.

The whole civil aviation scene is still so stupidly primitive and pilot workload intensive. It's like a constant came of "Simon" where you crash when you make a mistake.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Hey, cheap plane manufacturer is cheap. High wing Cessna's have 'Left, Right, and Both' as an option. Older Cessna's also have 'Off' on the selector. Low wing planes cannot have a 'both' option because they aren't gravity fed.

The cost of upgrading keeps many people stuck in an analog world. Don't get me wrong, I like having my steam gauges in case the panel otherwise fails, but a G1000 and GTN750/650 combo makes flying approaches in IFR a dream, SafeTaxi (Garmin) also helps at mid-sized airports because you can 'see' where the taxiways are in lower visibility situations.

A G1000 costs better than $50k plus install. Many general aviation planes are worth far less than that. The problem is that a brand new plane costs more than $300k for a nice one. Kit planes are sometimes cheaper (like the one this guy has) but some can hit nearly $2 million like the Eclipse LT. Most kit planes will still be about $150k or more finished.

On a hunch, I looked at the bay on Google maps. If the guy had spent a little money to truck the plane up the beach, he'd have had a LOT longer straight run for a clean take-off. He could also have had the plane towed to an actual road up the beach, or a patch of pasture.

Reminds me of the two idiots from Georgia that ran out of gas and made a street landing like five miles from the airport. The news reports document them re-fueling the plane and trying to take off from the same street, hitting the treetops on take-off and crashing much worse. When they could have rolled the plane down the street and around the corner to a clean, mile-long stretch of road without any poles or powerlines on it.

noitsnot:fazookus: moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight. They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I love the way he blames it on engine failure... as in, the engine failed because he basically drove into the water and the plane nosed over and the prop dug into the sand, laff.

I was taught to hold the stick/yoke all the way back for a soft field takeoff, they, um, didn't do that. Pilot error on top of pilot error.

No, the landing was due to "engine failure". Engine failure that they corrected by transferring fuel from one wing to the other, apparently. As in - he ran one tank dry because he forgot to switch.

The whole civil aviation scene is still so stupidly primitive and pilot workload intensive. It's like a constant came of "Simon" where you crash when you make a mistake.

If he had a Glasair Sportsman, I would've told him to detach the wings and truck it home. I don't know how much a hassle this one would've been for wing removal. Having landed at one sand airstrip was more than enough for me to say 'fark this' and I never want to do it again. That was one stressful landing / takeoff.

Different view of the same takeoff. He was steering leftish to try to avoid the cliffs once he took off and caught his left wheel in an incoming wave. This guy is a moron and probably shouldn't have a license to fly.

fatbear:noitsnot:No, the landing was due to "engine failure". Engine failure that they corrected by transferring fuel from one wing to the other, apparently. As in - he ran one tank dry because he forgot to switch.

The whole civil aviation scene is still so stupidly primitive and pilot workload intensive. It's like a constant came of "Simon" where you crash when you make a mistake.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Is anyone actually watching the video? If he just forgot to switch, he wouldn't need to transfer from one tank to the other. He had a faulty fuel valve, and couldn't access the fuel in the full tank.

It's "stupidly primitive" because it's a homebuilt aircraft.

Yep - didn't have the sound on :)

But that's not a homebuilt, is it? In any case, homebuilts are usually MUCH more sophisticated than the standard POS 70's 172.

In a normal takeoff you rotate when you hit X airspeed, a soft field takeoff is where you have the stick all way back from the get go, the idea is to keep as much weight off the wheels as possible, as long as possible. Once the plane lifts off on its own the nose comes up and it's perfectly natural to let off some pressure off and fly away as usual (unless you're making a soft/short field takeoff). Or so I believe, this coming from a few hours on a J3 Cub (greatest airplane of all time) and the rest on Cherokee flying appliances, not nearly as fun but the Cub basically fell apart so I had no choice.

If he had had full up elevator all the time you could have easily seen it, and he didn't. Basically he did (tried to do) a normal hard surface takeoff on a really soft surface. My guess is that the left wheel dug in and dragged him into the water.

As for torque (I feel a disturbance in the force, as though millions of Fark readers were falling asleep) the need for right rudder on climb out is actually a slipstream effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slipstream#Spiral_slipstream and not torque. I was told it was torque when I got my license but when you think about it torque would be a twisting moment about the axis of the propeller, something you'd counteract with the ailerons, not the rudder.

I have a Piper 180 with a Garmin 696 mounted on the yoke, it was about 3 grand. Obviously not certified for IFR but with its giant screen and XM weather it brought my "Historical aircraft" right in to the 21st. century. I fly for pleasure and to get out to the river house so VFR is just fine with me.Not everyone needs that glass panel airplane.Buddy has a Cirrus with steam gauges and a flat panel.He also has a lot more money too.

costermonger:noitsnot: fazookus: moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight. They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I love the way he blames it on engine failure... as in, the engine failed because he basically drove into the water and the plane nosed over and the prop dug into the sand, laff.

I was taught to hold the stick/yoke all the way back for a soft field takeoff, they, um, didn't do that. Pilot error on top of pilot error.

No, the landing was due to "engine failure". Engine failure that they corrected by transferring fuel from one wing to the other, apparently. As in - he ran one tank dry because he forgot to switch.

The whole civil aviation scene is still so stupidly primitive and pilot workload intensive. It's like a constant came of "Simon" where you crash when you make a mistake.

I helped the doc fly the approach in the Meridian. I come in faster than most prop planes in my our Acclaim, Mooney's are sleek, but a Turboprop is something else. I like to compare it to flying a Cessna thusly: a Cessna 172 is like driving a Geo Metro. It's not fancy, but it's workable, and it's easy to learn to drive. A Mooney is like having a BMW M series at the track, flying it well takes a good bit more practice to stay ahead. A turboprop like a Meridian is like driving a trophy truck at baja: you're looking off in the distance because that's coming up faster than you think.

And I didn't say the experimental part caused the crash, I was referring to the previous post that suggested GA was primitive because we still allow pilot error to be a factor in the crashes (as opposed to fully automated.)

I have a Piper 180 with a Garmin 696 mounted on the yoke, it was about 3 grand. Obviously not certified for IFR but with its giant screen and XM weather it brought my "Historical aircraft" right in to the 21st. century. I fly for pleasure and to get out to the river house so VFR is just fine with me.Not everyone needs that glass panel airplane.Buddy has a Cirrus with steam gauges and a flat panel.He also has a lot more money too.

I really wish there were aviation experts on here who could tell me exactly what went wrong and the mistakes the pilot made. Even better if they list their own expertise and flight hours so I realize they know what they're talking about.

Watubi:I really wish there were aviation experts on here who could tell me exactly what went wrong and the mistakes the pilot made. Even better if they list their own expertise and flight hours so I realize they know what they're talking about.

If you don't want to read it, piss off and go read a cat thread. I don't have enough time to make all the aviation mistakes myself, so I try to learn from others.

costermonger:noitsnot: fazookus: moeburn: That guy clearly forgot to yaw right with the rudder on takeoff, and the left-bearing torque of the propeller dragged him into the water.

That's right folks, single engine aircraft, and multi-engine aircraft with all props spinning the same direction, do not fly straight. They fly in the direction of the torque of the engines, usually to the left, and the pilot must compensate with rudder pedals on takeoff, and trim during flight.

I love the way he blames it on engine failure... as in, the engine failed because he basically drove into the water and the plane nosed over and the prop dug into the sand, laff.

I was taught to hold the stick/yoke all the way back for a soft field takeoff, they, um, didn't do that. Pilot error on top of pilot error.

No, the landing was due to "engine failure". Engine failure that they corrected by transferring fuel from one wing to the other, apparently. As in - he ran one tank dry because he forgot to switch.

The whole civil aviation scene is still so stupidly primitive and pilot workload intensive. It's like a constant came of "Simon" where you crash when you make a mistake.

You're just being difficult. It's a well known issue that pilot workload is a problem at all levels of flying. And I believe that fuel starvation due to failure to switch tanks is a major accident cause - although I've been out of it for a long time, so maybe the world has changed.

Still seems to me that it's the same old 172s, Cherokees, Bonanzas and Mooneys that it always was.

You're just being difficult. It's a well known issue that pilot workload is a problem at all levels of flying. And I believe that fuel starvation due to failure to switch tanks is a major accident cause - although I've been out of it for a long time, so maybe the world has changed.

Still seems to me that it's the same old 172s, Cherokees, Bonanzas and Mooneys that it always was.

Thats what killed John Denver. The switch for the fuel tanks, as well as the fuel gauge were both located in a really odd spot over his left shoulder behind the seat instead of on the dash or someplace a little more convenient to the pilot. Whoever built that plane, a Rutan Long-EZ, somehow they missed the basic fact that people have to have more visual access to critical controls on an aircraft. In any case, the fact that he ran his tanks dry and didn't switch to the reserve was the most direct cause of that wreck.